Post your thoughts and links relating to the foundations, justification and social impacts of the scientific examination of the natural world, computing, religion, society, economics or other fields of mental endeavour. History of science posts also most welcome.

In a nutshell, this subreddit is for all the thinking around and about science. Not so much the science itself (unless it provokes philosophical questions).

Now I'm not trying to be nostalgic or sentimental, but I would, to put this post in context, like to share a few memories and observations before putting my question to the community. I joined this subreddit somewhere around a year and half ago, and some change. Back then there were less than 5,000 readers and users were rarely online. Posts moved slowly and the comment sections had maybe one or two dozen comments at the most. This subreddit was specific, methodical, arcane, and above all else knowledgeable about the specific study of the field the Philosophy of Science. To be fair it was also slow and at times boring or rather scholastic in its discourse.

Now I enjoy the more lively debates and faster paced boards that have come along with the great influx of readers, but I am no longer sure how many people here know or read the, at times, rather arcane, but still amazing, technical philosophers of science. I would guess most have read about or some Karl Popper, hopefully a bit of Kuhn, and certainly know of Hume, but I would like to know how many people have bothered reading any of the logical positivists, such as Ayer, Hempel, Quine, Reichenbach, Grelling, or Tarski, or the causal philosophers, such as Lewis, Kvart, or Mackie. Additionally I'll throw in a few oddballs that some will know, but are still fun, like Feyerabend and Fraassen. However, my larger question is: does this community still focus on and take seriously the past and contemporary debates in the field of Scientific Philosophy? Or is the board more about the contemporary usage and debates surrounding the methodology and implementation of science, such as the reproducibility of studies, publication bias, and the mismanagement of things like big science or big Pharma. I find that these issues that are often posted about in here, while dealing with some philosophy of science, hardly due the field of study justice. All those debates I just mentioned essentially take an initial position about the nature of science and the scientific community for granted. Science already has a distinct and achievable purpose in most of these posts, and mandates a certain methodology that can be easily understood, deviated from, or corrected to the 'true' methodology. It seems that a good number of people on here are all too certain as to what counts as science, and what is that notion of science's aims and purpose. Is this change something that we should welcome? The least I can say is that we seem to have too few or any foundational debates, about which the subject is truly centered on, and so much more uninformed posturing than in days of old.

I would like to have a consensual opinion on this matter. If those who comment could indicate whether or not they are glad of the direction this board has taken, while still criticizing most of my post, I would be quite content. Thank you for reading, and have a great evening or day!

Just to chime in from a novice viewpoint: I haven't read Popper, Hume or anyone else on the list farther than Wikipedia and light googling. So why am I here? I started browsing this sub because of topical issues like climate science falsifiability, Sam Harris' scientific morality, and Lawrence Krauss' origins talks. I'm guessing those issues are going to start elevating the importance of philosophy of science in mainstream debate. Particularly climate science, in addition to scientific ethics and the usual creationism/ pseudoscience stuff.

I'm not sure if those topics are too "light" or "too applied" for this subreddit, but in other subreddits it just seems people are making up what they think science is. I guess I'm looking for something above the level of discourse in other subs but not completely esoteric either.

I don't think those topics are too light for this subreddit. I think we probably need a mixture of submissions, both academic and otherwise. As someone who is a bit more formally philosophically educated, I'd like to say you're welcome here to me. I would advise doing some reading around the area though. It is really interesting. Samir Okasha's Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction is a very good introduction in my opinion, if you're looking for something to get you started.

I think this is a general Reddit issue, not specific to the PoS subreddit. Every so often there is a post in growing subreddits that is a version of "We have gotten away from what made this subreddit great...", "We need to return to the roots...", etc.

There was an insightful comment (that I can't currently locate) that discussed in general terms how subreddit growth inevitably lead to the homogenization of the content. Subreddits start with a small, very passionate, educated and interested group. This leads to interesting new content, which attracts others. These new members are inevitably not as well versed in the subject matter, but it helps build the community. Then this process continues: more people see the content, but in attracting more members, the content submissions move farther away from the original kind of content of the subreddit.

(There was also a good comment recently that discussed how this sort of thing happened to cable tv channels. History channel to honey boo boo channel in 2 years)

There seem to be a few strategies different subreddits have adopted to deal with this:

Create a new meta subreddit like the original called "---2" or "True---", e.g. /r/science2, /r/TrueReddit, etc., This recreates the original small community feel.

Strong moderation that keeps the content high. This puts a filter on the content to only let submissions of the original kind through.

I think the moderation route is too much of a burden. PoS isn't a group of pics that can be quickly viewed, so I'd think creating a second subreddit of the "True" variety is the best strategy to return to the old sort of content (if this is what you are looking for, that is) and leave this one to its meta-scientific-circlejerk. Of course this has its problems (new subreddits have no readers, content, mods, etc.) but if people are dedicated and interested, it can be done.

I'm another uneducated git, who subscribed in here as a refugee from r/philosophy. I'm one of those newcomers, albeit a quite one, trying not to pollute the place with my ignorance. I speak now because I think the reasons behind my own migration may be indicative to the trends and concerns you discuss here.

I came here from r/philosophy because I have little interest in yet another 20 page discourse on existentialism, and grew tired of listening to people endlessly debate consciousness and free will, while studiously ignoring everything science is actually trying to learn about such incredibly complex topics, by you know, observation and research. Christ, even mention complexity over there, try to ponder its implications, and you get blank stares and/or retreat to musings from some very old very dead guys.

One of my personal hot curiosities is about possible ramifications to ideas like reductionism / determinism and causality, considering a reality that may be made out of probabilistic matter. Seems like pretty essential stuff, the kind of topic that begs discussion including the best of what we're learning from both science and philosophy, but dare to ponder such questions in r/philosophy and you often get scoffed at.

Suffice it to say, I became uninterested in r/philosophy's apparent myopia and stale fixations, and their seemingly vibrant disinterest in the real forefront of human knowledge, which clearly includes a lot of science. And so I came to r/PhilosophyofScience, and enjoy drinking the sweeter nectar here.

Now, I know that r/PhilosophyofScience is not intended to be a science group per se. But I often find science communities lacking in the philosophical dimension, something mentioned above me here. In contrast, this place is better populated by people and subject matter that is better informed by both science and philosophy, and I appreciate that. And even if the primary thrust is intended to be specifically the philosophy-of-science, which is not my central primary interest, the spillover still includes an inevitable and healthy measure of philosophy<-actually_knows->science, and that's a very welcome space to read and learn. It only makes sense that a population of philosophers of science would be above average at being well versed in both topics for a change.

I suspect that I am not the only such refugee for these reasons. r/science is all headlines, often fluff. r/philosophy is ... not very scientific. But many of us yearn for a proper wedding of science and philosophy. As a spin-off group, it could be called r/Science-and-Philosophy, or maybe r/what-are-we-really-learning-in-science-and-philosophy. That's the idea anyways. It's an important niche, that this group was not meant to fill, but still manages to do well enough that you are gathering followers, usually folks who are not specifically here for your specialty. That's my guess.

If there is a better group for me, I would love to hear about it, but I will remain watching here as well for the great stuff I see. Likewise, if I have shed some light on why many others may have ended up here, perhaps a side bar link would guide them to the pastures they were actually seeking.

And to conclude, I simply want to thank all you bright minds for being here, it really has been a pleasure to see some of the amazing stuff this group has led me to.

I do not know of a subreddit that would better address the issues you are seeking, i.e the wedding of philosophy and science, and would further state most people here are here because they seek to know upon what philosophical grounds scientific method, explanations, and evidence are based. My cry is more intended to point out to new comers that there is more to this field of study than just current debates inside science. If this field was only about current debates, then Philosophy of Science becomes just "science works so make sure you do it damn right!" Really I just want people to read a few of the foundational authors of the field.

Perhaps I could be so bold and say that what I want is akin to the assigning of some preliminary readings people have to read before posting in here. An example of this short reading list would have these things. You simply must must must at least know, to a respectable degree, Hume's challenge to induction and what follows from it. You have to know the great Popperian notions of falsification and corroboration, but also the limits and flaws of this view. Kuhn's notion of studying the history of the field itself is also very important to read, appreciate, and to recognize the cleverness and limits of incommensurable paradigms. To learn the distinction between Empiricists and Rationalists, and what each view offers as both a unique way of understanding science and the limits it imposes on science. The creation, rise, and fall of the Logical positivists, and for people on here to slowly, bit by bit, to read some, a piece really, of the other foundational and eminent philosophers from this field, such as Quine, Hempel, or Feyerabend. The final part of this plea would be to never settle into one single idea or view point on what exactly science is, but rather keep searching the foundational literature as a way to enrich your view of what constitutes a science, adoring some views, grudgingly acknowledging others, and skewering, but still understanding, the rest.

I apologize if this plea seems unnecessary or presumptive, but if this was carried out by most on here, then there wouldn't even be a worry in my mind about maintaining the level of discourse on here. Again I think all are welcome to read and enjoy this subreddit. I just want a little higher PoS literacy.

... and would further state most people here are here because they seek to know upon what philosophical grounds scientific method, explanations, and evidence are based.

I suspect the recent influx may be better explained by people seeking a better general wedding of science and philosophy, as was my reason for finding PoS, and as remains my greater interest. Of course that includes philosophy of science in good measure, good science must study itself to be wise, but the topic dilution we see speaks more to people wielding philosophy with science, seeking a quality union of them applied to broader issues. As I discussed above, I see a real and pressing need for improvement in both the general sciences and philosophy, they need to be spending much more time together than is often the case. I sense that many folks are growing tired of the common myopia in both fields, and seeking better depth, and often landing here in PoS as a result.

That point made, I will thank you for doing a great job of pointing myself and others in a good direction to lay a crucial foundation for PoS. I have not before seen such a to-the-point suggested reading list, that seems to sensibly budget effort for all the right reasons in all the right places. I will be taking your advice, and know that I will be the better for it. I said I was uneducated, and to the extent I had hoped to find direction in r/philosophy to rectify that situation, the message seemed to be get a PhD and read everything, or you are invalid. It was less than practical or helpful (the term "wankers" comes to mind). I think you've put your finger on exactly what I was looking for.

This is pretty much everything I personally think you need to get a firm layman handle on PoS. You don't have to read everything at once but once you have read a few, the discipline won't be that alien to you.

That is fantastic, I double appreciate your effort here. I will admit that money to buy books can be a real issue for many, myself included, and free reading in the interwebs I already pay for is a huge help.

I would guess that, just like everything else that becomes more popular, there are just as many quality submissions but there are more to sift through. That seems to be my experience here the last few months.

Just try it out. I find it difficult to engage in heavy philosophy on an online forum and mainly use this subreddit as a source of inspiration, but who knows what happens if the right discussion is brought to light.

On r/askscience, I was accused of being an intelligent design advocate because I questioned whether our understanding of evolution was complete. I believe my accuser was a student or researcher of genetics or some related field of biology.

I am deeply concerned that many actual scientists (researchers) do not have even a rudimentary knowledge of authors like Kuhn, Popper, etc. Many scientists have become very defensive about attacks on global warming and evolution, so they have retreated to somewhat inflexible (even positivist) view of science.

To the extent possible, I would hope that this subreddit community try to educate people about the philosophy of science, epistemology and the "science wars." There needs to be a forum where science and research can be questioned without it being motivated by politics and silly things like creationism.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I don't know if the science wars are something anyone from any perspective should applaud... I'll say this: I don't think Philosophy of Science should or does have a bias towards questioning science or research, I think the subject is a bit more fundamental than that. I think it hopes to understand what science is and why it is has been so successful, and maybe what it cannot be successful at. This forum, in my honest and probably loudest opinion, should be focused on these sorts of pursuits. I really don't want this subreddit to devolve into the science wars, as I do not see those as really any kind of productive discourse.

Actually I will reappraise and restate what I want to be taken away from this post and discussion. This forum should be used for a healthy and productive discourse about what is science, what can be known and done in and about science, and what is or is not taken for granted in science. It SHOULD NOT, again should not, be about boasting of sciences greatness nor simply questioning science for questions sake. Plainly stated, we should never, not even ever, attempt to recreate the science wars, at all or in any form. All efforts should be aimed at truly and actually understanding what is science, what does it mean, and what does it do. This doesn't mean we can't debate these matters, rather it encourages those debates, but the unhealthy discourse of either an entirely positive or negative discourse should be avoided. In all things endeavoring to be knowledge, dispassion and impartiality should be striven for.

Perhaps a separate subreddit needs to be created where things like research fraud, science funding and similar issues should be posted. The sidebar here could direct potential posters to that subreddit in order to more clearly delineate what is and is not appropriate here. We could call it /r/scienceassessment or something like that.

I'm a PhD student studying philosophy of science, so I've done the Popper/Kuhn/Hume/20th century analytic stuff in some depth.

You know what was wrong with all of that literature? It didn't make any effort to engage with the nitty gritty of what scientists actually do. It was so much logical bluster with nearly no engagement with actual working science, beyond Newton and Einstein. I mean, Popper's [edit]falsification criterion entailed that Darwinian evolution wasn't real science for pity's sake.

So I think the fact that people are keenly interested in things like publication biases or the question of how economic interests skew scientific method are actually really good signs. It gives me hope. The crisis of reproducability in psychology and the medical 'sciences' right now are probably the most important issue facing philosophers of science, and I would be disturbed if we weren't focused on it.

The problem here is holding up the demarcation criteria as a holy grail of some sort - Popper never said that if you didn't meet the demarcation criteria the work was worthless, just that it wasn't science. Nothing more, nothing less. He, and those building on his thoughts, also made distinction between pseudoscience and "non-sciences" that might be useful (Darwinian evolution as metaphysics, rather), for which Mahner proposed the term parascience.

cool, thanks a lot. Since you've read up on this more than I, what do you think are the prospects of integrating biology or zoology into social sciences? Dawkins once proposed this idea and it's been in my head ever since.

There have been several attempts to do that, none of which have been particularly successful. Google 'sociobiology' if you want to see a long and messy history of failure.

The most recent attempt is essentially the same thing under a different name, "Evolutionary Psychology". The jury is still out on whether it works, but I tend to think it's just as much of a mess as sociobiology was.

I might have a special interest in the subject, seeing as I am a biologist, but most in biology consider "Evolutionary Psychology" so much nonproductive hand waving. The problem is coming up with, like all things in science, a rigorous methodology that lets in enough debate to move the field, but keeps out the crap... Testability is a big problem with EP and other 'sociobiology'.

I do know most of the essentials of Popper's philosophy, Quine's Two Dogmas, Reichenbach's work, C.S Pierce and Pragmatism, and a lot about how Kant factors into most of the work in PoS after 1850. However, most of what I know of these I know from academic papers and commentaries, not from the original texts.

I'm also very interested in work on Bayesian and computational learning models of the scientific method, though I have yet to find anything that is absolutely convincing. Till then, I prefer thinking more along the lines of Kuhn.

In essence, I'm pretty much an amateur, and I need to read more, but I like to think that I know my stuff.

I see my purpose in this community as someone who can periodically attempt to 'ground' PoS in the real world. Philosophers in general tend to spend inordinate amounts of time focusing on other people's writings and work. As a neuroscientist, I spend inordinate amounts of time focusing on the biology of cognition, and etiology of disease. I let the brains and behaviors of the world be my great works, and I try to figure out what they mean and are saying.

Ignoramus here: not a philosopher, not a scientist, don't even have a university degree, so I imagine I'm a minority.

I don't post (what would I say?), but what I typically do is read discussions and self posts rather than follow links, especially when it seems to be a news article rather than a resource. I enjoy the quality of conversation and the kind of thinking that happens in this subreddit, and I feel like it improves the quality of my own thinking. I'm happy to wade through posts that don't seem to offer what I'm looking for in order to find the ones that do.